Ann Ormonde (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Áine Brady, who is listening to the very fine contributions of everybody. That is how it should be at this stage of the debate. This is a very important Bill and I am glad it is being introduced at this time because it will have a huge impact on how we will develop. It is timely in light of the economic circumstances in which we find ourselves. I am also glad it has been initiated in the Seanad for the simple reason that most of us were county councillors and understand the workings of a development plan, how the drafting process begins with local consultation and how it moves through every stage before it becomes finalised. I am very pleased to listen to the debate and to many of the points made by the Opposition, particularly by my colleague from Waterford, Senator Coffey, to which I will refer; I am big enough to lend praise when it has to be given.

Planning is about people and the common good must come into play. We must examine where we went wrong in recent years. Was it developer led rather than planning led? Was there bad management? I am not saying there was or there was not; I do not know enough to do so. However, a perception exists that things were not right during recent years and that was what created the property bubble and the commuter belts, as a result of which we have huge suffering. People live in houses which were very badly designed. One walks into a house and can hear all the activity in the next house, including conversations. Something went wrong with the various professional bodies and people involved in planning. We did not get it right professionally. I am not stating that any particular person is to blame but something went wrong. As a county councillor I could see this was happening, as I could in recent years as a Senator.

I am glad we are introducing an amendment to the 2000 Act to ensure this will never happen again. We need a hands-on approach and the Minister spoke about his core strategy, which is that the development plan and housing strategy must be consistent with the planning guidelines and the national spatial strategy. That is a wide statement but a simple one. It means that at policy level, whenever a plan comes up for renewal the national spatial strategy and the regional guidelines will be taken into account.

I am concerned we have become more urbanised in our thinking in recent years. We have many ghost towns throughout Ireland; they are lovely during the summer months but come October and November there is nobody there. There are no houses being built as families cannot build houses on their local farm, the public houses are closing because of the laws on drink driving and we also have an issue with rural transport. My vision is that we would have activity throughout Ireland. I do not want to be urbanised or ruralised; I want Ireland to prosper. My Ireland is one where all small towns prosper.

I am delighted to support Senator Coffey who spoke about seven villages in Waterford which I know very well. For years they have been crying out for a village sewerage scheme but nothing has happened. I do not understand why it is not activated. People are trying to build houses. The post offices and public houses are closing in these areas. Derelict sites exist everywhere. We have golden opportunities to upgrade our little seaside villages which have beautiful scenery but suffer from neglect. This must be taken into account when planning.

The Bill states that a population of 5,000 people is required for a local area plan, an increase from the requirement of a population of 2,000. The concept is great but what will happen to an area that does not have a population of 5,000 people but which wants a little development plan for the area? Is this urbanised thinking? Is this for a big development scheme of 500 houses? It is not for two or three houses in a small site or for where one wants to create employment by establishing a business in an area and so it is zoned for industry. I do not know enough about this but I am asking questions.

I am concerned about the majority rule for development plans as two thirds of county councillors will now be required. The role of the councillor is very important and councillors do great work. However, many of them have another job and if they have to be there for a plan to be passed by two thirds we may never have a plan passed. People objecting may form a group and the two thirds majority would not be reached. I am in favour of ensuring we have proper planning in an area, adhering to the regional guidance plan and looking after the little people but will it be possible to get development plans through with the demands on county councillors? Most county councillors want to be there to vote on development plans; it is one of the most important roles of a county councillor and is very important to them.

I will deviate and raise the issue of An Bord Pleanála, which may not be relevant to this discussion but perhaps it should be. This is with regard to the relationship between banks and developers and I will use the example of the Ballsbridge site which cost €379 million funded by bank borrowing. The question that needs to be asked is whether banks took planning considerations into account when making lending decisions to developers. Should banks be lending money where there is no hope of getting planning permission? We need to discuss these issues at policy level because the perception is that local authorities send out the wrong signals to developers leaving An Bord Pleanála to overturn or amend planning decisions on appeal. In a case where a local authority rezones land and grants planning permission because a developer obtained a large amount of money to buy that land why would An Bord Pleanála turn it down if the planners had stuck to the regional guidelines and national spatial strategy and followed all of the necessary examples? An Bord Pleanála plays a major role at policy level in large development schemes. There are many examples of land being worth less because planning permission was turned down and it is about to go to NAMA. An Bord Pleanála should have a larger role at the earlier stages of these developments. Let it come in at the end when there is an objection for other reasons. Why would it object if one has adhered to the planning guidelines? If an inspector's report states a planning application adheres to the guidelines, why should An Bord Pleanála turn it down? Why send an inspector to vet a development when his or her word will not be taken?

Why is the number required for a statutory quorum being reduced from three members of the board to two? Is it to speed up the processes involved? I welcome the provision for the extension of planning permissions for five years where a development cannot be completed in the time stated.

I welcome the Bill and have no doubt there will be many debates about its provisions on Committee Stage. I am concerned about certain provisions. At all costs, powers should not be taken away from county councillors. They are doing a great job and have good knowledge and experience of local issues such as broadband services and transport infrastructure which can assist the planning process.

I agree with Senator Coffey on the lack of water and sewerage schemes in many Waterford towns. These are ghost towns in the winter, a problem which should not have been allowed to happen. Rural as well as urban development is needed. We cannot become too urbanised. This is all about Ireland, not urban areas.